The Instigator
XSZEATVOIER
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Gays

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,314 times Debate No: 48615
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

XSZEATVOIER

Con

Gay people should be shunned by society. It is unnatural for people of the same sex to become sexually attracted to each other. I hate these new times where openly gay people are becoming more prominent. I think gay marriage shouldn't be called "marriage" because it is not. Marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman. Not to be mean (actually I intend to), but I think the gays should lose all of their rights. I'd consider them a different species. If I had a choice, I would send them to the leprosy colonies in Hawaii. Normally, when famous people (or anyone really) come out and say they are gay it is a big deal. And you know why? Because it is UNNATURAL. This isn't even because of religion. I truly hate them. I feel bad for the orphans that have to be adopted by the gay couples, I'd rather stay an orphan. If anyone has something to say... try.
bladerunner060

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for initiating this debate. As he has taken R1 as his opening statement, I will take the opportunity to use R1 as rebuttal.

I'd like to note for the sake of readers and voters that the instigator of this debate, who has the presumptive BoP, has set himself up as "Con" to the motion--I will do my best to remember that, as it just feels weird to be opposing his ideas from his instigated debate, yet to be Pro.

And, to repeat, he has the presumptive BoP.

Con opens with: "Gay people should be shunned by society." This is the main motion, and the one I will be arguing against. He makes points further down regarding marriage, rights, and adoption, but I see those as extensions of that central premise.

Con's opening contention ostensibly in support of his motion is: "It is unnatural for people of the same sex to become sexually attracted to each other."

This is, first off, a nonsequitur. It doesn't directly support his motion without further argument that Con does not provide. I suppose we are to assume that Con is maintaining that that which is unnatural should be shunned by society. This would lead to the shunning of clothing, of eyeglasses, of modern medicine; it's rather clearly absurd on its face, and I hope Con can present an actual argument as to what, specifically, he means by this.

Further, even accepting the premise that the statement is based on (which must be, in order for the statement to make any sense, that that which is unnatural is to be shunned), the huge flaw is that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and homosexuality is exhibited in the natural world in many species [1].

As such, his opening argument fails in every meaningful way--it's a non sequitur which, if I infer the argument, leads to absurdity, and which is still not true even then.

Con says that he hates "these new times where openly gay people are becoming more prominent". His own bigotry is not a sufficient justification for society to shun an entire group of people.

He then moves on to his extensions:

He thinks gay marriage shouldn't be called marriage because "marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman". But of course, that idea of 1 man and 1 woman is far from the universal standard throughout time. The simple assertion that marriage is between man and woman is just that--assertion. Con demands we beg the question as to the definition and meaning of marriage so that his assertion is valid. As he's given no reason for us to do so, I maintain we should not. Marriage, at its core, is a contractual relationship between parties. Back when religion and the state were more closely intertwined, religion was allowed to dictate what it "meant". In this age, however, we have governments which are supposed to be removed from, distinct from, religion. Of course, some religions allow homosexual marriage, too, including "In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church... The United Church of Christ and the Alliance of Baptists also condone gay marriage, and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions." [2]

But if the state, separate from religion, is going to sanction a form of marriage, it must sufficiently justify doing so--and, in the US at least, must sufficiently justify why it is the way it is, particularly if it discriminates against one group of people or another. There are legal, Constitutional, and philosophical issues at play which, at present, are largely irrelevant as Con has given no justification whatsoever outside of assertion (and indeed, even excludes religion at one point!).

At the risk of being mean, Con's fundamental ignorance is underscored when he makes this statement: "I'd consider them a different species." Gay people are not a different species under any classification system I've ever heard of. I see this as merely an expression of Con's personal revulsion, a revulsion based on no rational grounds.

Con continues, stating that if he had a choice, he "would send them to the leprosy colonies in Hawaii." I presume he's talking about the Kalaupapa settlement, which currently has no active sufferers of leprosy, but does still have about fourteen former sufferers of Hansen's Disease. It's a national park now, and remains open both to allow the folks who were forcibly sent there to continue living, and to remind us of our past regarding those with the illness. There is no reason given by Con as to why homosexuals should be sent there--I again am forced to conclude this is an expression of Con's personal revulsion, an emotional equation of homosexuality to disease.

Con claims that "Normally, when famous people (or anyone really) come out and say they are gay it is a big deal. And you know why? Because it is UNNATURAL."

I beg to differ. It's a "big deal" because homosexuals have been discriminated against by people holding views similar to Con's for centuries, and a famous person coming out as homosexual is both news regarding a celebrity (which we, as a culture, lap up quicker than Nyan Cat), but also because it's a celebrity coming out and publicly admitting to their membership in a minority group.

Con then says "This isn't even because of religion. I truly hate them." He gives no reason for his hatred that isn't mere revulsion and bigotry. At further risk of being mean, I'm sure that the majority of homosexuals who might read what he's posted so far will have grounds to hate him, but at the risk of over-hypothesizing, I suspect there would likely be less hatred than pity for him.

Con finally says that he feels "bad for the orphans that have to be adopted by the gay couples, I'd rather stay an orphan." I presume Con is not, in fact, an orphan. That he presumes to think what an orphan would choose is sad, to say the least. Suffice it to say, there is no real evidence that children adopted by gays do worse than those adopted by straights, and no evidence whatsoever anywhere of any kind that they do better than kids who aren't adopted at all. "The best study so far...is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers...The lesbian mothers" reports of their children "indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts"...[and as regards] their kids" testimony: "The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents."" [3]

Con closes with: "If anyone has something to say... try."

Since I have, I now turn the floor back over to Con.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.bu.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
XSZEATVOIER

Con

I will be addressing most of what you said

I take back my previous statement "Gay people should be shunned by society", I think the state of being gay should be disapproved because it prevents the birth of children and potentially important people to mankind. It is unnatural to be gay. We as humans are supposed to survive. We have no other purpose, but to do so. Children would help with this. What would happen if everyone was gay? Most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another. For example "male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of old, less effective sperm."
I do dislike the seemingly more common amount of gay people. As I said before, marriage between gays should not be called marriage, but something like legally united. Just the title must be changed and obviously I am not part of any of the churches you mentioned.
I know the gays aren't a different species, I would be fine if they were though. I would like to send the gays to the leprosy colonies because it means they are farther away from me because I am slightly homophobic.
Whenever a person who comes out a big deal is made. Now, you say it is because they have been mistreated throughout history and I say it is because of how unusual it is(Which may or may not be true. Everyone has a different reason). Assuming you are mostly correct, they still have been discriminated against because of religion and how it is UNNATURAL. I do not in fact hate the gays I just MOST of them very annoying, which might just be unfair on my part, but I was raised disliking the gays and I would like to thank my family and friends for that.
I also do in fact feel sympathy towards the orphans adopted by the gay couples. Just because I am not an orphan doesn't mean I cannot sympathize for them. I feel pity for them because of my opinions of gay people.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
bladerunner060

Pro

Thank you to my opponent.

Con opens with: "I take back my previous statement "Gay people should be shunned by society", I think the state of being gay should be disapproved" I guess this is a concession, although I don't think it was intended as such, and I'll address the merits of his further arguments. Con, you posted the resolution--it's not really appropriate to try to shift it after the fact.

Con says that he's against homosexual behavior "because it prevents the birth of children and potentially important people to mankind." This is not really supported at all--I suppose it presumes that being gay is a choice, which most folks agree is simply not the case. As a non-choice, it seems rather that it doesn't prevent any births; these are people who would have no interest in having sex which would be procreative. Further, it ignores that rather a majority of heterosexuals use birth control, and decide when they'll breed almost as much as homosexuals.

Con claims "It is unnatural to be gay." This has already been rebutted, and Con offers no argument that addresses the rebuttal.

Con then goes on to say "We as humans are supposed to survive. We have no other purpose, but to do so." This appeal to teleology has no bearing on our debate unless Con actually makes an argument in support of it. Which he has not.

Con asks "What would happen if everyone was gay?", but makes no case for why we should care. If everyone was gay, children could still be born--and even if that weren't true, again, why should we care? Con has presented no reason why we should have children.

Con says "Most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another. For example "male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of old, less effective sperm." Con doesn't source this, however, a single example does not in any support that "most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another". Further, even ignoring that he hasn't supported his contention, it's irrelevant--he claimed that homosexual behavior was unnatural, and I showed that it was present in the natural world, which refuted him.

Con repeats his contention that "marriage between gays should not be called marriage, but something like legally united. Just the title must be changed and obviously I am not part of any of the churches you mentioned." This is an utter dodge of the arguments I made, and another mere assertion. Con, you must make a case--you don't get to just say so.

Con concedes "I know the gays aren't a different species", which is interesting considering he claimed differently. He admits "I would like to send the gays to the leprosy colonies because it means they are farther away from me because I am slightly homophobic." I would argue that the use of the "slightly" qualifier is unnecessary here. Con, you are very homophobic, and you have not presented any coherent arguments to justify your position.

Con then says "Whenever a person who comes out a big deal is made. I say it is because of how unusual it is..." That's not what you said, Con. You said it was because it was "UNNATURAL". Do not try to say you said that which you did not say.

Con moves on to say "I do not in fact hate the gays I just MOST of them very annoying, which might just be unfair on my part, but I was raised disliking the gays and I would like to thank my family and friends for that." This contradicts what Con already said, which is that he does hate the gays. Further, that you were raised to dislike the gays doesn't mean that you're justified in disliking the gays. And that you've admitted it "might just be unfair on [your] part" certainly doesn't help your case.

Con closes with "I also do in fact feel sympathy towards the orphans adopted by the gay couples. Just because I am not an orphan doesn't mean I cannot sympathize for them. I feel pity for them because of my opinions of gay people." This doesn't address any of the points I made at all, and so I consider them dropped.

In conclusion of this round, I would like to point out that Con has given no justification for his position except for flatly untrue claims and his own personal distaste. Neither of these support his motion.

I return the floor to my opponent. I hope he can make an actual justified case this next round.


Debate Round No. 2
XSZEATVOIER

Con

I have noticed that you take things very literally and that I should not use any sarcasm. Therefore I will be very literal and explain everything. I will also address things slightly off topic.

Being gay is not a choice. I believe it is your surroundings as you are raised that helps determine who you are sexually attracted to you. Despite how gay people feel towards the same sex, they can still decide whether to do anything about it. They can instead help increase Earth's population.

As I said in the previous round, children are important for the future of mankind. It was my bad for not stating why they are (forgive me, but I will be getting a little off topic). As you and I know, people die. Now to replace the dead people, we(humans) need to conceive children. Gay couples sadly cannot contribute. Couples already use birth control and there are those who will never find mates.

Homosexuality is present in the natural world and I will not and have not denied this. I do claim that homosexuality in humans is unnatural. As I said before most if not all species who participate in homosexual activities do it to help its species thrive. Here is a link (same as before) giving a list of such animals which is also where I got my information on the flour beetle.

When I said I was slightly homophobic it was meant that I am homophobic. I was using sarcasm, which is why I addressed it briefly.

I agree that at first I said "unnatural" and not unusual when describing homosexuality. I used the word "unusual" for the sake of not sounding repetitive. I also noticed you did not address my points for that part of my argument. This may have been because of the distraction of my incorrect wording or you felt that you did not need to respond to it, but if you don't mind, I would like you to.

When I originally started the debate, I did not think anyone would respond to me assuming I was just "trolling". And so I brought up points that are hard to defend. (there are a lot of them)
You have brought better rebuttals than I have and you avoided saying I am "stupid" or "retarded" and I appreciate that. You have not completely changed my views, but you definitely have shed light on them. You have overall done better and I admit to losing this debate.

Thank you for your time. I have really enjoyed this.
bladerunner060

Pro

Thank you to Con.

This was a short closing round from him--I'll try to be similarly brief, though it's not my natural inclination. He feels that "Despite how gay people feel towards the same sex, they can still decide whether to do anything about it. They can instead help increase Earth's population." Gay people have children. Dan Savage, the star of the relatively well-known "Savage Love" column and podcast, adopted a child. I see no benefit to "increas[ing] Earth's population" while there are still children waiting to be adopted. And, frankly, in a world as overpopulated as ours, I see no real justification for the necessity of breeding at all.

But even ignoring the adoption issue, Con says "Gay couples sadly cannot contribute." This is untrue. They most certainly can, though artificial insemination. Gay couples can use a surrogate, and lesbian couples can use sperm donors. The argument simply doensn't fly.

Con says that he does "claim that homosexuality in humans is unnatural." He has given no justification for this, despite me already calling him out on it, and as a bare assertion, it should be dismissed.

Con says "As I said before most if not all species who participate in homosexual activities do it to help its species thrive." That is not quite what he said before, in fact. He claimed that "Most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another. For example "male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of old, less effective sperm." I would concede taht there's an element of helping the species thrive in homosexualtiy, particularly in humans, in that I think our species thrives when more people are in happy relationships--though I don't think that's what Con meant. But at the risk of repeating myself, a single example is not sufficient to justify the claim about "most if not all species". While I'm as much a fan of Wikipedia as the next guy, the article Con linked to is just an (incomplete) list of animals that have "documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting"--a far cry from Con's claims.

Con claims I dropped a point, and that I "did not address [his] points for that part of [his] argument", and he requests I do so. However Con, the "point" you made was this: "Whenever a person who comes out a big deal is made. Now, you say it is because they have been mistreated throughout history and I say it is because of how unusual it is(Which may or may not be true. Everyone has a different reason). Assuming you are mostly correct, they still have been discriminated against because of religion and how it is UNNATURAL. " The first is a statement I don't particularly care to argue; I can trivially concede that it is unusual (in fact, that's rather implied by my own earlier point). The second, though, is merely a restatement of an assertion that has already been dealt with, in the case of religion, or rebutted, in the case of your claims as to it being "UNNATURAL". There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

To Con, I will say in conclusion: You must critically consider your own position. You may have been raised to think that homosexuals are bad, or should be shunned, but the same could be said of someone raised in the south in the 1800s, who might have been raised to think of black people as subhuman, or a different species. We recognize now that that's ridiculous. Similarly, I maintain that the prejudices you have been given should rightly be shed. I hope you do so.

Thank you for instigating this debate, and I now turn it over to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheChristian 1 year ago
TheChristian
Primarily sexual attraction is bad, but an emotional relationship? Im proud to have a relationship (only emotional) wit my boyfriend. Im a guy.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
@XSZEATVOIR First and foremost, you have conflated utilities and human sexuality into a category which pertains to usefulness. This is fallacious because If I reciprocate your assertion, then heterosexuality is equally useless. Cars, phones, and computers are utilities that have been manufactured and developed by individuals of varying degrees of sexuality. Sexuality, to the extent that I am concerned, has accomplished an abysmal or no influence on the advancement of technology. Explicate your contention please. How is a homosexual computer engineer incapable of producing results that may assist humankind prosper?
Posted by MadisonMichelle 2 years ago
MadisonMichelle
How does Homosexuality not help us prosper? Peoples sexuality and rights shouldn't be based on whether they help the economy, or the world. All I am saying, is that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone wanted slavery to end, because those slaves were people too. Homosexuals don't harm economy, nor do they harm the world in any way.
Posted by XSZEATVOIER 2 years ago
XSZEATVOIER
Cars, phones, computers, etc. are all very useful and help us prosper. Homosexuality does not.
Posted by XSZEATVOIER 2 years ago
XSZEATVOIER
Who said a talking snake in the Bible is natural?
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
I have the distinct suspicion that my opponent is going to forfeit.
Posted by vekoma123 2 years ago
vekoma123
'A talking snake in the Bible is natural, but two people of the same gender loving eachother isnt?'

Checkmate, radical bible-thumpers.
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
Homosexuality is natural. It occurs naturally and cannot be changed; it would be similar to you trying to make yourself attracted to men -- you can't (unless you're gay/bi-sexual to begin with). Homosexuality will rarely produce offspring, but we live in a large society where there's already overpopulation occurring, so from a completely logical perspective, gay people are helping the world by not contributing to the world's population. Gay couples adopt orphans, and although you may not want to be adopted by a gay person, I can assure you that orphans would disagree.

And as other people have stated: you're sitting on a computer, connecting to the internet, discussing topics with people on the other side of the world. We live in houses, we wear clothes, we use tools, we have cars and trains and planes and do the most unnatural things anybody could think of. You cannot disagree with something simply because it's not "natural".
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
Dude, that's homophobic.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
"being gay is not natural why dont go further and say pedophilia also natural ?? man need woman and woman need man period."

The next person who tries to say this, define what you think is the definition of natural.

"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."

Because your iPhone is 100% natural. Your watch is 100% natural. Your car is 100%.
480 species take part in homosexuality, yet it isn't natural? It isn't, "existing in nature?"
" man need woman and woman need man "
Please refer to Hitchens' Razor. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You are no one to tell the needs of people, it is a subjective issue, in which you are trying to place as objective. It is bigotry, ignorance and a measure of arrogance.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
XSZEATVOIERbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made major concession, and made horrible responses to Pro's points.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
XSZEATVOIERbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see how this decision requires much in the way of thought. Not only does Con backtrack on many of his own statements, but he proceeds to admit that he is losing the debate in the final round. Pro is basically winning every argument I can find here. I don't see enough response coming from Con on any single point to make a demonstrable difference in this debate. When Con outright admits that his arguments come from bias, fear and hatred, it's not hard to see why it's difficult to find logic in his assertions. Perhaps he simply finds comfort in the things he has been taught since childhood, but when those views are exposed to the light of day, as these have been, they are rightly shown to be threadbare and weak. XSZEATVOIER, no matter what you've been taught since childhood, it appears that you are not a weak-minded person. You can understand the faults in your own positions. Explore them for yourself. Reevaluate your position, and see if you come to the same conclusions.
Vote Placed by vekoma123 2 years ago
vekoma123
XSZEATVOIERbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, but I think Pro's arguments were more convincing.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
XSZEATVOIERbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Does this really need an RFD? Con started his second round with "I take back what I said" and tried to alter the resolution that he put forth. The debate is over at this point. Even if we look at the fact that con presented cases such as homosexuality being unnatural, they were promptly shot down by pro. I would offer a much longer RFD but I feel like it is not really needed. This is pretty clear. Conduct to pro for con trying to change his argument and clearly arguments to pro